Author
Topic: "DIRECT" Goes Live (Read 350002 times)

Here's a novel concept which DIRECT could offer as a performance upgrade.

Our very own Chuck Longton from this forum, suggested this idea to me earlier this evening. A quick bit of tinkering with the artwork, and I can show it to you all now...

It is basically a "cargo bay" squeezed in between the Crew Module and Service Module of the CEV.

Even the basic variant of DIRECT certainly has more than enough performance to lift such an item as this to the ISS.

It does not change the aerodynamic profile for the CLV, although there is no reason it could not be lengthened if required.

A transmission tunnel running up the spine of the new module connects the CM and SM together largely as normal.

This would immediatly offer the ability to deliver the remianing ISS elements which are no longer planned to fly, and are simply gathering dust, and any other valuable hardware which will be relegated to the scrapheap with Ares-I.

Consider this simply a 'concept' of what might be possible if the Crew Launch Vehicle has 70mT lift capacity instead of just 22mT.

One thought I have had - with 48.9mT of spare lift capability in the SLA under the CEV, I wonder if flights going without cargo couldn't instead carry a large 48mT water tank just under the CEV itself? That would provide one heckuva "bullet proof vest", located immediately under the CEV, in case of problems "back there".

Ross, you've created a very interesting scenario with so much extra lift available on a standard ISS or LEO flight. Certainly with the funds liberated from Ares development, more ISS flights than the two currently alloted in the initial manifest are possible. I really believe that when you create a capability, someone will find something to do with it.

In the commercial sector, perhaps NASA could offer to place several Bigalow modules in orbit for little to no cost. That gives Bigalow somewhere to send his Atlas-launched crew vehicle, and makes the whole venture considerably more plausible. In return, NASA greatly increases the probability of private space access.

So, perhaps if you want your DIRECT vehicle to work, see if Bigalow will endorse it.

Also, I suggest a "get involved" link on your website. If nothing else, I can prepare a form letter that you can place online so people can write their congressmen, senator, etc. I would love to help!

Given the latest performance figures released on L2 show the CLV can't lift 20mT to -30X100 now, even after the massive re-design of the 'stick' to help the crisis they are in, NASA can stay this course as much as they want, but they'll not have a VSE.

In the commercial sector, perhaps NASA could offer to place several Bigalow modules in orbit for little to no cost. That gives Bigalow somewhere to send his Atlas-launched crew vehicle, and makes the whole venture considerably more plausible. In return, NASA greatly increases the probability of private space access.

So, perhaps if you want your DIRECT vehicle to work, see if Bigalow will endorse it.

Here's a novel concept which DIRECT could offer as a performance upgrade.

It is basically a "cargo bay" squeezed in between the Crew Module and Service Module of the CEV.

Consider this simply a 'concept' of what might be possible if the Crew Launch Vehicle has 70mT lift capacity instead of just 22mT.

Ross.

I don't think that is a viable method. Messes up the CEV and the LV to "cargo bay" interface is iffy. It causes most of the load to be "hung" vs axial compression. Anyways, there won't any ISS modules left on the ground. If you are talking CAM (or any other module), it can be redesigned/modified by the time it would be flown on a Direct Vehicle*. It would be best to do it like the Apollo LM or ASTP docking module and have the "ISS" module behind the CEV in a "CLA" and have it extracted like the LM. The CEV could deliver it (since it has lunar mission fuel capacity) near the ISS like the HTV, and the station arm grabs the module. The CEV undocks from the module, the arm moves it out of the way and the CEV docks with the station.

Jim, I thought about docking to extract the payload, but is there enough time after MECO and before the 1st circularization burn to turn around & pull it out? Or should we allow the core to become orbital (60X160 or something), then put retros on it to make it suborbital again after the CEV extracts the payload?

The other idea I had is having a small kick stage just behind the payload module so it could perform the 1st post-MECO burn, buying more time before the CEV had to dock with it.

What prevents that law from being changed? I doubt the law was written with any consideration of a vehicle like the DIRECT concept where so much extra mass could be made available. The possible scenarios (limited ones, at that) where commercial payloads could be flown would be very different than any situation NASA carried commercial payloads on the Shuttle.

What prevents that law from being changed? I doubt the law was written with any consideration of a vehicle like the DIRECT concept where so much extra mass could be made available. The possible scenarios (limited ones, at that) where commercial payloads could be flown would be very different than any situation NASA carried commercial payloads on the Shuttle.

Exactly. This is my opinion as well. I'm writing down my view about Ares family (Ares 1, Ares II and Ares V) and I'll publish it here next week. If I wouldn't have other obligations it would have been here already.

Logged

'Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill' - Old Greek experience

I don't mean to be rude or arrogant, but I think the commercial sector (especially once I get into it) could come up with a vehicle even Direct Launcher would have a very difficult time in competition with. The thing is that Direct Launcher is a 70,000kg class booster; the biggest in the commercial market are 25,000kg class. The private market at 70,000kg is currently nil, and in the next 20 years, probably 2, 3 if you're lucky, launches. These launches would be space hotels or GEO commercial waystations and use smaller boosters for primary operations. Also, if a GEO commercial waystation can be built from Ariane (or other CSG launcher) launches, that's one fewer.

I wouldn't say the law can't be changed, but I might say it doesn't need to be. Given how NASA has traditionally absorbed and ostensibly endorsed commercial and commercializable Air Force programs like DC-X, only to spongefest and porkbarrel them into oblivion, it might not be such a good idea to get that law changed.